BLM, or WLM? [MOD WARNING: FIRST POST]

Overheal

nullzero wrote: »

You posted a link to cops talking crap over their radios.

That isn't proof of violence being instigated by police against protesters at an organisational level, you know like the way BLM leaders instigate violence against the police and others.

You have some neck pushing this narrative of me moving goalposts when you can't even answer a simple question properly. As I already stated, you set the parameters yourself when you compared what I said about BLM with police policy. You set the goalposts in place and then proceeded to move them to suit yourself.

As usual, it's just waffle waffle waffle from you, post over and over and repeat your lies until they are accepted as truth, Goebbels would be so Proud.

Yet more goalpost shifting. Nevermind that it was Central Dispatch. That seems pretty organizational to me.

Overheal

mynamejeff wrote: »

https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/63943132/breonna-taylor-summary-redacted1


you've seen this before right , heavily and actively involved in drug trafficking , not a innocent victim , unless you count her as a victim of her boyfriend

This is just the documentation summarized in the article AT already shared, which I've just addressed a response to AT about. Circumstantial evidence.

TheFactMan

Overheal wrote: »

Which from your link all appears to be circumstantial. They're trying to pin her for drugs because she called the house a trap house, and where she was and when etc. despite having not witnessed any transactions.

In college several fraternity brothers nicknamed their home "The Trap House" and no, no drugs were dealt there. It's a nickname, not a smoking gun.

I have to laugh at how openminded you are and how willing to give the benefit of the doubt to every person encountering the police, all the while instantly condemning the police at every turn even when there is evidence to support they were right...

Laughable how you love circumstantial evidence now but as soon as it's against your agenda ohhh no no can't have that !

You really are hypocritical with your views honestly.

Overheal

TheFactMan wrote: »

They announced they were police,

No not according to the eye witness or to the neighbors who were also woken up by the door being battered off the frame and bullets flying through their apartments. Police actively chose not to present in uniform or to wear body cameras to prove otherwise.

the fact remains she put herself in danger by drug trafficking

This is in fact not a fact, but an allegation.

or being around people that do

Which is circumstantial, and guilt by association.

but I suppose you ll tell me she didn't know now or some other nonsense, and the facts are they banged on the door announced who they were repeatedly they proceeded to kick the door down meanwhile your victims (drug traffickers) were rattling rounds off thru the door. Either the definition of victim has changed or you are really really reaching .

But Imagine that did happen you and it was a black person you had to shoot I'd say your head would implode from the hypocrisy.

As I mentioned, eyewitnesses do not corroborate this tall tale. Continuing to smear them as drug dealers isn't helpful either, and seems like a rather emotional argument given the lack of hard evidence to that effect.

nullzero

Overheal wrote: »

Yet more goalpost shifting. Nevermind that it was Central Dispatch. That seems pretty organizational to me.

Dispatch is another officer talking to the officer in the field. It isn't how policy is implemented.
It's just some other uniform cop talking to the cops on the street from a control room.

Policy is not decided by uniformed low ranking officers in control rooms.

If that seems like confirmation of what you are arguing then you clearly are severely misinformed.

Overheal

TheFactMan wrote: »

I have to laugh at how openminded you are and how willing to give the benefit of the doubt to every person encountering the police, all the while instantly condemning the police at every turn even when there is evidence to support they were right...

Laughable how you love circumstantial evidence now but as soon as it's against your agenda ohhh no no can't have that !

You really are hypocritical with your views honestly.

If you say so. :rolleyes: Not that I "instantly condemn police at every turn," as several posters here have well noted before you. Recent example just from last night.

AbusesToilets

mynamejeff wrote: »

https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/63943132/breonna-taylor-summary-redacted1


you've seen this before right , heavily and actively involved in drug trafficking , not a innocent victim , unless you count her as a victim of her boyfriend

Thanks for posting it again, couldn't find the link.

Overheal

nullzero wrote: »

Dispatch is another officer talking to the officer in the field. It isn't how policy is implemented.
It's just some other uniform cop talking to the cops on the street from a control room.

Policy is not decided by uniformed low ranking officers in control rooms.

If that seems like confirmation of what you are arguing then you clearly are severely misinformed.

"From leaders! No uh, organizationally! No uh, implemented policy!"

mynamejeff

Overheal wrote: »

This is just the documentation summarized in the article AT already shared, which I've just addressed a response to AT about. Circumstantial evidence.

that's a lie

there are transcripts proving that she was involved in drug trafficking .

incidentally what is you law enforcement expertise ?

TheFactMan

Overheal wrote: »

No not according to the eye witness or to the neighbors who were also woken up by the door being battered off the frame and bullets flying through their apartments. Police actively chose not to present in uniform or to wear body cameras to prove otherwise.

This is in fact not a fact, but an allegation.



Which is circumstantial, and guilt by association.



As I mentioned, eyewitnesses do not corroborate this tall tale. Continuing to smear them as drug dealers isn't helpful either, and seems like a rather emotional argument given the lack of hard evidence to that effect.

Lawfully killed for firing blindly at the police.

Good job by the police calm composed took out the targets that presented as threats in a fast moving scenario.

More drug dealers off the streets.

Your painting them as victims is circumstantial at best basically naive nonsense in truth .

They ll be paid to pander to blm

Overheal

mynamejeff wrote: »

that's a lie

there are transcripts proving that she was involved in drug trafficking .

The only transcript I saw was her mentioning a "trap house" which as I already explained is no smoking gun of anything.

incidentally what is you law enforcement expertise ?

Teeing up more ad hominems is it? As though citizens are unqualified to hold their taxpayer funded and government regulated police accountable. Pull another.

AbusesToilets

Overheal wrote: »

Which from your link all appears to be circumstantial. They're trying to pin her for drugs because she called the house a trap house, and where she was and when etc. despite having not witnessed any transactions.

In college several fraternity brothers nicknamed their home "The Trap House" and no, no drugs were dealt there. It's a nickname, not a smoking gun.

Respectfully, from reading the documents, there is a quite a bit of actual evidence to support that claim. There are recorded conversations and video surveillance records which point to her being active in supporting her partners drug activities.

Again, that doesn't mean she deserved to be shot. To me, the situation speaks to a poorly executed raid, I which she ended up caught in the crossfire between her BF and the police. I would like to see more details with respect to whether the police actually announced themselves or not, as that would colour the actions of the BF significantly imo.

TheFactMan

Overheal wrote: »

No not according to the eye witness or to the neighbors who were also woken up by the door being battered off the frame and bullets flying through their apartments. Police actively chose not to present in uniform or to wear body cameras to prove otherwise.

This is in fact not a fact, but an allegation.



Which is circumstantial, and guilt by association.



As I mentioned, eyewitnesses do not corroborate this tall tale. Continuing to smear them as drug dealers isn't helpful either, and seems like a rather emotional argument given the lack of hard evidence to that effect.

Police

Overheal

TheFactMan wrote: »

Lawfully killed for firing blindly at the police.

Good job by the police calm composed took out the targets that presented as threats in a fast moving scenario.

More drug dealers off the streets.

Your painting them as victims is circumstantial at best basically naive nonsense in truth .

They ll be paid to pander to blm

Clearly you've made up your own mind despite only circumstantial evidence of any wrongdoing. Her boyfriend also lawfully fired at home invaders. As I've said before, their killing may have been lawful but that only underscores how broken the law is in this regard. Thanks, Qualified Immunity.

nullzero

Overheal wrote: »

"From leaders! No uh, organizationally! No uh, implemented policy!"

Overheal that is pathetic.

I made a statement about BLM leaders calling for violence. I later provided links to interviews these people gave to the press expressing these opinions.

You stated that the police are doing the same thing. You provided no information that actually supports this notion, you posted a link to a story about rank and file police officers making idiotic comments over the radio. This isn't the same as what is being pushed by BLM leadership.

As I previously stated, YOU set the goalposts in place, and YOU have been moving them ever since. But you still somehow feel it's me being unreasonable.

The mind boggles.

TheFactMan

Overheal wrote: »

Clearly you've made up your own mind despite only circumstantial evidence of any wrongdoing. Her boyfriend also lawfully fired at home invaders. As I've said before, their killing may have been lawful but that only underscores how broken the law is in this regard. Thanks, Qualified Immunity.

So you are naive enough to believe they were raided at complete random and saint like victims ? You are prob the worst I've seen on here in terms of being hypocritical and completely biased towards everything blm... And that's saying something!

mynamejeff

Overheal wrote: »

The only transcript I saw was her mentioning a "trap house" which as I already explained is no smoking gun of anything.

then you either didn't read it or are as per usual ignoring clear and obvious facts

you know what a trap house is ? surveillance pictures ?

did she allow her car to used as well as her phone ,post bail for the gang stash money for them ?

Justin Credible Darts

Overheal wrote: »

"From leaders! No uh, organizationally! No uh, implemented policy!"

I reckon Overheal is one of those paid disinformation agents..

mynamejeff

Deleted User wrote: »

I reckon Overheal is one of those paid disinformation agents..

its like yer man chemical Ali denying the Americans have landed as the bombs land behind him :pac::pac::pac:

Overheal

nullzero wrote: »

Overheal that is pathetic.

I made a statement about BLM leaders calling for violence. I later provided links to interviews these people gave to the press expressing these opinions.

You stated that the police are doing the same thing. You provided no information that actually supports this notion, you posted a link to a story about rank and file police officers making idiotic comments over the radio. This isn't the same as what is being pushed by BLM leadership.

As I previously stated, YOU set the goalposts in place, and YOU have been moving them ever since. But you still somehow feel it's me being unreasonable.

The mind boggles.

I don't know how many other ways to explain to you but I already roundly addressed your question, despite many attempts to shift the goalposts. Quite bored of trying to constantly re-litigate the fact to you every couple posts and I can't imagine for others it's anything less than tedious to read. Clearly, you'll need to agree to disagree with me at this point.

Overheal

TheFactMan wrote: »

So you are naive enough to believe they were raided at complete random and saint like victims ? You are prob the worst I've seen on here in terms of being hypocritical and completely biased towards everything blm... And that's saying something!

Strawman fallacy.

As linked to earlier, the police had loads of circumstantial evidence, of course it was not 'at complete random' and I never alleged that it was.

Justin Credible Darts

mynamejeff wrote: »

its like yer man chemical Ali denying the Americans have landed as the bombs land behind him :pac::pac::pac:

laughing like at lunatic at this......spot on

DangerScouse

mynamejeff wrote: »

its like yer man chemical Ali denying the Americans have landed as the bombs land behind him :pac::pac::pac:

It's embarrassing at this stage.

Let him on I say.

TheFactMan

Overheal wrote: »

Strawman fallacy.

As linked to earlier, the police had loads of circumstantial evidence, of course it was not 'at complete random' and I never alleged that it was.

"Strawman! Victim blamer! Moving goal posts!! "

Yawn...the broken record meme couldn't be more accurate.

TheFactMan

DangerScouse wrote: »

It's embarrassing at this stage.

Let him on I say.

It genuinely is lol never seen anyone as dedicated to being completely wrong ever.

Overheal

Pointing out logically flawed arguments shouldn't upset you that much. Just start making logically sound arguments. Pretty simple.

DangerScouse

TheFactMan wrote: »

It genuinely is lol never seen anyone as dedicated to being completely wrong ever.

The fact he/she posts so often makes it all the more amusing

mynamejeff

Overheal wrote: »

Pointing out logically flawed arguments shouldn't upset you that much. Just start making logically sound arguments. Pretty simple.

logic ?

you had better google the meaning of that

Ten of Swords

DangerScouse wrote: »

The fact he/she posts so often makes it all the more amusing

Deleted User wrote: »

I reckon Overheal is one of those paid disinformation agents..

mynamejeff wrote: »

its like yer man chemical Ali denying the Americans have landed as the bombs land behind him

Mod - Why are we discussing a poster instead of posts?